ACCORDING to the 2017 statistics from the Higher Education Ministry, there are 25,823 international students in public universities in Malaysia. This number does not include the number of enrolments in private colleges and diploma centres.
The complaint handling policy in the education sector for students is contained in the code of practice for programme accreditation, which, in paragraph 4.4.1, states: “There must be a mechanism for students to air grievances and make appeals relating to student support services.”
The complaint handling and dispute resolution policy in the education sector falls short of global best practices.
Academic staff are required to deliver quality teaching. When the service is perceived to be inadequate by a student, he should have the right to complain to the lecturer, head of department or the dean of faculty.
Similarly, academic and nonacademic staff may have reasons to complain about the terms of service. Grievances without appropriate channel to direct them can jeopardise the performance of academic staff, and affect productivity and research output.
The offices of legal advisers or student affairs are the easiest channels to lodge complaints in most universities, but the personnel are rarely seen to be independent and neutral.
Quality control and feedback me chanisms are not the same as having an ombudsman. Feedback mechanism serves the purpose of assessing quality services, while an ombudsman would provide a wider scope for grievance and complaint handling. An ombudsman is seen as independent, impartial and fair.
Confidentiality of information is key. Sexual harassment and misconduct cases involving academics are handled with extreme confidence under ombudsman procedures. Only in rare instances are cases taken to the court. Ombudsman policy can help fix this.
The lack of specific policy direction for university ombudsman implies that stakeholders have options either to do nothing or to do whatever pleases the university.
It is interesting to note that despite the absence of a policy on this issue, Universiti Sains Malaysia and Monash University deem it necessary to have ombudsman offices for grievance handling in line with international best practices.
In 2012, USM created the ombudsman office as a platform for the university’s staff and undergraduates to voice their dissatisfaction on issues. While this is encouraging, it seems that no other public university has seen the need to establish an ombudsman office to handle complaints effectively. The university also leverages this internal policy to protect whistle-blowers.
Realising the gap in grievance handling policy, Monash University in Malaysia made ombudsman procedures operational. The Education Ministry may want to explore this for introduction in other universities in the country.
In Malaysia, although the Public Complaint Bureau (PCB) performs a similar role to the ombudsman, it lacks speciality, independence and transparency, which are essential for the education sector. In addition, for a sector comprising both private and public entities, it is necessary to detach university complaints from PCB.
International best practices in the United States, Canada and New Zealand show that the notion of a public officer for all kinds of complaints is becoming a thing of the past. Ombudsman has become the new face of complaint handling in public, quasi-public and private sectors in many parts of the world, and Malaysia should not be an exception.
Young people find it very easy to complain over the social media on issues which may be capable of resolution by the ombudsman.
University ombudsman with online accessibility or mobile app could be an attractive and user-friendly option for young university students.
Every university administrator must be concerned about the reputational risk from complaints going public. The number of foreign students seeking admission may also be affected in the absence of a clear policy on complaint handling.
To avoid lengthy and cumbersome litigation process, a university ombudsman could be tailormade to suit the nature of complaints peculiar to the sector.
This underlines the need for a clear policy for uniform complaint handling among stakeholders in the education sector.
The policy document is only a framework for complaint handling in the university and could mandate every university in Malaysia to establish an office of ombudsman, which must be separate and independent of the legal adviser’s office.
The ombudsman’s office and its head must uphold independence, neutrality, confidentiality and fairness. The policy must not exclude the right of the complainant from proceeding to court as a last resort.
All stakeholders, including students and staff, must be made aware of the ombudsman office and procedure, while such office must be required to submit a report to the Education Ministry annually. The ministry should ensure that every university submits its ombudsman report as part of the accreditation process.
DR SODIQ OMOOLA
Assistant Professor, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia